Poll: Evolution Yay or Nah?

[Free Thinker]

I personally accept Evolution as fact. If people don't that's understandable. There's a reason Evolution should be taught in public schools, because it's scientific. If someone doesn't like the course material, they can opt out. But don't shove your religion down my throat and expect me to believe. Why can't we just stop this damn pissing war? I know for a fact that Science and Religion can co-exist, but someone always thinks they're right and that other people must be told they're wrong. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 

[evilneko]

Are you saying we should let students opt out of learning the facts?

 

[zombie goat fetish]

Deny it all you want, it is a FACT.

 

[DracoSuave]

I know for a fact that Science and Religion can co-exist

Science and Religion-as-concept can co-exist.

However, Science, and specific religions cannot co-exist where said religion preaches things as facts that can be proven to be false.

Having the right to religion is important, and one I respect. However, religious tenets are only sacred to its adherents. The tenets of a religion I do not believe in are in no way sacred to me, and nor should I be beholden to them simply 'out of respect.' Freedom of religion must include freedom FROM religion.

And if science, the expanding knowledge base of mankind, can quantifyably prove your religion has a tenet that simply cannot be true, then that's simply that. That religious tenet has now been shown to be a fairy tale. A fiction. Something some guy made up.

It should still be taught, in the same way that we teach Greek myth and Norse myth--it gives us an understanding of the people those beliefs arise from. However, no one teaches Greek myth-as-fact. No one teaches Norse-myth as fact. And once a religious tenet is proven false by empirical data, then no one should teach that tenet as fact either, for it is no different than any other myth.

 

[Active Schizophrenic]

Ya that reply was pretty pointless and didn't have anything to with my post and nowhere in the bible does it say that god created heaven directly above earth. especially in genesis. it also kind of seems that you have no idea what you are talking about. and I believe the bible is more than just a story with good morals if I did, why would of I based my life around it? Also god's world was perfect until halfway through genesis 3 and then sin ruins it all. and if god thought the world was perfect why did he send his son to die for it imperfection? I think you just have a very misinformed view of the bible.

The bible states that God is incapable of lying.

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Hebrews 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

The bible states that man is capable of lying.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

-------------------

So thusly, we have the bible stating unequivocably that God will not, and is not capable of falsehood, but that man in contrast is capable of falsehood.

The observations of the universe show that, given what we can observe, it is billions of years old. However, the bible indicates that the universe is considerably less than that, only a few thousand years old... the birth of Adam plus a week or so.

If the bible's accounting is correct, then God put the evidence of the heavens in the sky in such a way that we'd come to a false conclusion. In other words, he put false information in the night sky. As god cannot lie, we know this to be impossible. So therefore, if God exists, the universe must be billions of years old.

On the other hand, we know the bible is written by men. According to that same bible, men can lie, and therefore the bible may contain mistruths, as it is written, and retranslated by men, who may be telling mistruths about their divine inspiration--something the bible explicitly warns about.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.

So the question then becomes the idea of which must you believe?

Do you believe the bible, the work of men, or the universe, God's creation itself?

That is implying it is impossible to do both. The way I see the bible is that it is gods manual of how to live your life in him and how people have done it in the past. also I find that it shows how not to as well and that for all the mistakes you make you can be forgiven. It is true things get lost or skewed in translations but then again, the books I ancient its crazy how much of it we actually kept from over the years when translating things from Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek to English meanings of words change along with a dated language itself. God wasn't a science teacher either, his book was written in a way that would be understood by the people at the time. How would Jesus be able to teach people who live in homes made out of stone how evolution works? or the creation of the universe? Not everything In the bible is meant to be taken %100 seriously as times have changed we have seen the world it round and seen how evolution works. If you went back in time to the old testament something we know is an absolute fact, like gravity for example would of gotten you stoned. I think that the things we know know can be used as evidence to re-form who and what god is and not how people from a thousand years ago saw him.

 

[WhatIsThisIDontEven]

Science is awesome. It's correct whether you believe it or not.

Science, though awesome, isn't always correct. Theories do come and go all the time as they are proven or disproven. In general, science could not progress without people questioning it. In this case though, I see your point. Most of the people arguing against evolution are not publishing scholarly papers in scientific journals, and a lot of the arguments are not based in hard science.

Excellent point, and I see what you mean.
I meant that hard evidence and experiments will always give the correct outcome, it's how we interpret those outcomes that determines whether we are right or wrong.

 

[TK421]

and why would you think said interpretations are incorrect? There are gaps, but we know where the fossils we do have fit in, even a 6 year old would likely agree on the fossil placements in the record by inspection alone. And we have many forms of dating to check the time periods, and for recent fossils and preserved DNA we can trace the DNA through the generations. The results from all these things form the same image of the fossil record, and of the Theory of evolution as a whole.
And we don't just have fossil records, if you read those links on ring species and followed up on that, we have evidence right now that does not rely on fossils. Also, if there were that a great a disagreement on the fossil records, the world would know about it. But scientists in all the relevant fields agree on what the results mean, and even agree the basic time-frame.

I understand that a great many scientists agree on time-frames and such, but I do not agree with their estimates. The way I figure it, the world is between 8-15 thousand years old, and most of their estimates do not fit into this time frame.
I am a creationist, as you can surely tell by my statement above, but I don't think science is a bad thing at all. In fact, I would go so far as to encourage it. Science is a wonderful thing, it has created many conveniences that make life easier, and a great many wonderful medications and surgeries. I just think that scientists should work on refining their dating systems, and continue to search for evidence about how species came about. Until they can prove to me that evolution is a fact, I will stick to my current opinion of how things came to be.

 

[evilneko]

I understand that a great many scientists agree on time-frames and such, but I do not agree with their estimates. The way I figure it, the world is between 8-15 thousand years old, and most of their estimates do not fit into this time frame.

The way I figure it, and I am not alone in this, you are wrong. All evidence points to an Earth billions of years old.

I am a creationist, as you can surely tell by my statement above, but I don't think science is a bad thing at all. In fact, I would go so far as to encourage it. Science is a wonderful thing, it has created many conveniences that make life easier, and a great many wonderful medications and surgeries.

Many of which owe their discovery to scientists thoroughly understanding evolution.

I just think that scientists should work on refining their dating systems,

Naturally dating methods will be refined as technology marches on, but there is no reason to doubt the current methodologies by several orders of magnitude.

and continue to search for evidence about how species came about. Until they can prove to me that evolution is a fact, I will stick to my current opinion of how things came to be.

And what would it take to do that? Have your instructors been inept? Or has it been you that is unwilling to accept the facts and evidence laid out before you? There is an abundance of actual, scientific learning material available online and much of it for free. I can point you to several sources myself. The wikipedia page on evolution has links to at least a half-dozen sites where you can learn as well. The information is out there. At some point, you've only yourself to blame.

 

[Brandon237]

and why would you think said interpretations are incorrect? There are gaps, but we know where the fossils we do have fit in, even a 6 year old would likely agree on the fossil placements in the record by inspection alone. And we have many forms of dating to check the time periods, and for recent fossils and preserved DNA we can trace the DNA through the generations. The results from all these things form the same image of the fossil record, and of the Theory of evolution as a whole.
And we don't just have fossil records, if you read those links on ring species and followed up on that, we have evidence right now that does not rely on fossils. Also, if there were that a great a disagreement on the fossil records, the world would know about it. But scientists in all the relevant fields agree on what the results mean, and even agree the basic time-frame.

I understand that a great many scientists agree on time-frames and such, but I do not agree with their estimates. The way I figure it, the world is between 8-15 thousand years old, and most of their estimates do not fit into this time frame.
I am a creationist, as you can surely tell by my statement above, but I don't think science is a bad thing at all. In fact, I would go so far as to encourage it. Science is a wonderful thing, it has created many conveniences that make life easier, and a great many wonderful medications and surgeries. I just think that scientists should work on refining their dating systems, and continue to search for evidence about how species came about. Until they can prove to me that evolution is a fact, I will stick to my current opinion of how things came to be.

They have, to what is close to the scientifically possible limit, proven evolution as fact. There will never be a significant other piece of evidence, they just have to do a little fleshing out of what they do have. The evidence they have forms a very good, stable, supported coherent theory.

And as for your age of the Earth, these two links should show decent evidence that is can be proven that the Earth is significantly older: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology

Read the citations if you don't trust wikipedia.

 

[TK421]

They have, to what is close to the scientifically possible limit, proven evolution as fact. There will never be a significant other piece of evidence, they just have to do a little fleshing out of what they do have. The evidence they have forms a very good, stable, supported coherent theory.

And as for your age of the Earth, these two links should show decent evidence that is can be proven that the Earth is significantly older: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology

Read the citations if you don't trust wikipedia.

I appreciate your desire to help, but if I don't trust the dating systems, I don't see why those links would change my mind.

 

[evilneko]

Well, at least you seem to accept that the fault lies with you now.